ASHWIN S MAHETA Vs. CUSTODIAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 03,2006
ASHWIN S.MEHTA
Appellant
VERSUS
CUSTODIAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KEDARNATH JUTE MFG COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]TEJKUMAR BALAKRISHNA RUIA VS. A K MENON [REFERRED TO]
HARSHAD SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. CUSTODIAN [REFERRED TO]
L S SYNTHETICS LIMITED VS. FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD VS. CUSTODIAN [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET INDIA VS. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRA KHANDU BERADI VS. NAGAR AGRICULTURAL SALE AND PURCHASE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Hari Raj Singh VS. Sanchalak Panchayat Raj U.P. Govt. Lucknow and others [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
YOGESH MEHTA VS. CUSTODIA APPOINTED UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-56] [REFERRED TO]KISHAN LAL CHAWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(ALL)-2011-4-379] [REFERRED TO]
JANATHA TEXTILES VS. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-172] [REFERRED TO]
NALIN Z. MEHTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD [LAWS(CE)-2011-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK AGENCY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
VALLEY IRON & STEEL COMPANY LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA KUMARI VS. OM PRAKASH JANGRA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN GARG VS. INDIAN BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
SARAF PAPERMILLS LTD VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-11-161] [REFERRED TO]
A SENTHIL KUMAR VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
TANGERINE A K VS. VANTAGE MARKETING [LAWS(KER)-2012-7-556] [REFERRED TO]
MAGHENDRA PAL TYAGI VS. JAYANT DAVAR [LAWS(SC)-2008-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
M/S AFROZ ALAM VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
M/S DINESH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES VS. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
LIKHAN S/O URKUDJI MESHRAM VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-165] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN SINGH AND CO VS. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
JALESH BHATIA VS. UPFC [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER PRAKASH VERMA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-323] [REFERRED TO]
ALAPATI HARICHANDRARAO S/O SESHANNA VS. NALLURI SOMASEKHAR S/O KOTESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2017-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
S. HONNAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-2-166] [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV PRASAD SINGH VS. HARENDAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
VARUNI BIOMASS ENERGY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, K.K. SURENDRANATH AND K.K. DINAKARAN VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-517] [REFERRED TO]
C N PARAMASIVAM VS. SUNRISE PLAZA PARTNER KALYANASUNDARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-632] [REFERRED TO]
MR. SHAJI V.P. S/O MR. PEETHAMBARAN VS. K.T. UNNIKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-319] [REFERRED TO]
G.P. VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION [LAWS(KER)-2013-3-159] [REFERRED TO]
AMANANA VENKATARATNAM AND ORS. VS. NADIKOPPULA SEETHARAMASWAMY AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD. VS. PRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-135] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR S MEHTA VS. CUSTODIAN [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
RASILA S MEHTA VS. CUSTODIAN NARIMAN BHAVAN [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATKUMAR C JINWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-206] [REFERRED TO]
R. VIJAYAKUMAR VS. C. NATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-796] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA DEVARAJ BHAT VS. S SRINIVAS [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-203] [REFERRED TO]
BIO RESEARCH PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIWIN S MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
BLA POWER PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-56] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S.B.SINHA, J. -
(1.)THESE appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 17-10-2003 passed by the Special Court constituted under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (for short "the Act") in Misc. Application Nos. 41 of 1999, 4 of 2001, 265, 266 and 275 of 2003.
(2.)THE Appellants herein who are related to one Harshad S. Mehta (since deceased) purchased nine residential flats in a building called Madhuli Apartments in Worli area of Mumbai. THE family of the Appellants consists of four brothers, their wives, children and their widowed mother. THE eldest among them, Harshad S. Mehta, has since expired. THE said nine flats, it is said, were merged and redesigned for joint living of the entire family.
The Appellants herein and the said late Harshad Mehta were persons notified in terms of the Act which was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith. In terms of the provisions of the Act, along with late Harshad Mehta, the Custodian had notified 29 entities in terms of Section 3 of the Act, comprising three of his younger brothers, wife of late Harshad Mehta, wives of two of his younger brothers and other corporate entities, a partnership firm and three HUFs. However, out of the said 29 entities, only Late Harshad Mehta and two of his younger brothers were cited as accused in various criminal cases filed against them.
The properties of Late Harshad Mehta and the Appellants, herein being notified persons stood attached in terms of the provisions of the Act.
(3.)BEFORE the learned Special Court, the parties herein filed several applications which can be sub-divided in three categories, as would be noticed shortly hereinafter. It is not in dispute that the learned Special Court on or about 3-8-1993 issued directions in various proceedings before it appointing auditors to prepare and audit the books of accounts of all notified persons for the period 1-4-1990 and 8-6-1992, i.e., the date of the notification. Three firms of Chartered Accountants were appointed to prepare statement of accounts and liabilities of each of the Appellants, herein.
A Chartered Accountants' Firm was appointed by the learned Special Judge by an order dated 17-9-2003 to represent all notified entities in the family of late Harshad Mehta for the purpose of ascertaining their tax liabilities.
(2.)THE Appellants herein who are related to one Harshad S. Mehta (since deceased) purchased nine residential flats in a building called Madhuli Apartments in Worli area of Mumbai. THE family of the Appellants consists of four brothers, their wives, children and their widowed mother. THE eldest among them, Harshad S. Mehta, has since expired. THE said nine flats, it is said, were merged and redesigned for joint living of the entire family.
The Appellants herein and the said late Harshad Mehta were persons notified in terms of the Act which was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith. In terms of the provisions of the Act, along with late Harshad Mehta, the Custodian had notified 29 entities in terms of Section 3 of the Act, comprising three of his younger brothers, wife of late Harshad Mehta, wives of two of his younger brothers and other corporate entities, a partnership firm and three HUFs. However, out of the said 29 entities, only Late Harshad Mehta and two of his younger brothers were cited as accused in various criminal cases filed against them.
The properties of Late Harshad Mehta and the Appellants, herein being notified persons stood attached in terms of the provisions of the Act.
(3.)BEFORE the learned Special Court, the parties herein filed several applications which can be sub-divided in three categories, as would be noticed shortly hereinafter. It is not in dispute that the learned Special Court on or about 3-8-1993 issued directions in various proceedings before it appointing auditors to prepare and audit the books of accounts of all notified persons for the period 1-4-1990 and 8-6-1992, i.e., the date of the notification. Three firms of Chartered Accountants were appointed to prepare statement of accounts and liabilities of each of the Appellants, herein.
A Chartered Accountants' Firm was appointed by the learned Special Judge by an order dated 17-9-2003 to represent all notified entities in the family of late Harshad Mehta for the purpose of ascertaining their tax liabilities.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.